Here we discuss sex and politics, loudly, no apologies hence "screeds" and "attitude."

12/11/2015

Who knew Ash Carter was a fan of The Killers?

Rebecca asked me (Wally) to come over and cover some aspect of Wednesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that I attended.

I found the hearing to be a joke.

It was announced that not only is President Barack Obama preparing to send US troops into combat in Iraq but he's also trying to get Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to agree to US attack helicopters being used to retake Ramadi from the Islamic State.

And no one on the Committee cares about the safety of the US troops.

Oh, sure, there was some lip service to how they'll be serving on Christmas -- and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter rushed to insist he was in contact with troops on Thanksgiving Day -- but they don't really care or they wouldn't use them like toys in their never ending war games.

It's all a bunch of crap.

The US war that created the Islamic State?

It's the same war, they insist, that will end the Islamic State.

Yeah, that makes sense -- if you bat s**t insane.

So with that in mind, let me note what stood out to me in the hearing, a single statement.

At one point, Carter insisted, "I can't speak for the Russians but I have spoken to the Russians."

Who knew he was a fan of The Killers?

We know the rock group, right?

Fronted by Brandon Flowers?

And we all know their song "All These Things That I Have Done"?

Right?

I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier

Yeah, you know you got to help me out
Yeah, oh don't you put me on the backburner
You know you got to help me out
You're gonna bring yourself down
You're gonna bring yourself down
Yeah, oh don't you put me on the backburner
You're gonna bring yourself down
Yeah, you're gonna bring yourself down

I've got soul but I'm not a soldier -- The Killers.

I can't speak for the Russians but I have spoken to the Russians -- Ash Carter

Thursday, December 10, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, the State
Dept's John Kirby attempts to humiliate and attack a woman in a briefing
today, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter inadvertently explains how fear
of the 'alternative' leads the US government to support despots, and
much more.

Let's start with bitchy.

US State Dept spokesperson John Kirby flaunted his own stupidty when he
unleashed his bitchy at today's State Dept press briefing and launched
his attack on RT [RUSSIA TODAY].

As shameful as he was, equally shameful was REUTERS whose 'reporter' rushed in to change the subject and rescue the State Dept.

Let's jump in to where Chickakryan attempts to get answers to her questions.

QUESTION: I have one more question on Turkey, please.MR KIRBY: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, you were saying that it’s up to
Turkey and Iraq to figure out the situation with the uninvited Turkish
troops. But the U.S. does take upon itself to invite forces from other
countries into Iraq and in Syria. Ash Carter was telling Congress
yesterday that he personally reached out to 40 countries asking them to
commit special ops for the fight and other support. The Iraqi parliament
is concerned that their country is becoming this ground where different
countries do what they want. The Iraqi parliament’s Security and
Defense Committee is calling for the review or cancelation of the U.S.
security agreement with Iraq. What does the U.S. do to address their
concerns?
MR KIRBY: Address whose concerns?
QUESTION: The Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee that is
now calling to review or cancel the agreement with the U.S.
MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those reports, ma’am. We continue to
work with the Iraqi Government. The troops that Secretary Carter
referred to, that decision was done in full coordination and cooperation
with the Iraqi Government. If you’re trying to suggest that somehow
U.S. military assistance against ISIL is untoward or being done without
full coordination with the Iraq Government, it’s just a completely
baseless charge. And I don’t think it’s worth having any more
discussions about it.
QUESTION: But you’re saying – are you saying that you’re not
aware of the Iraqi parliament’s – this Security and Defense Committee’s
initiative that they want to --
MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that, no. I haven’t seen that.
QUESTION: Okay. What – the situation where the U.S. invites forces --
MR KIRBY: I’m going to give you just one more, honestly, and then that’s it. Okay?
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: The situation where the U.S. invites forces to Iraq
and the U.S. is leading this coalition, but when something goes wrong,
the U.S. says it’s none of our business, like with the Turkish troops.
Let – you have to figure it out between yourselves. Should it be of no
concern to Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Should what be of no concern? I love these questions
that are 10 minutes long then I’m supposed to get the grain of it out
of there. Should what be of no concern?
QUESTION: The fact that when something – you have this
cooperation, you have this agreement, but when something goes wrong, the
U.S. says it’s none of our business, like with what’s happening with
the Turkish troops.
MR KIRBY: Oh, come on. Again, another ridiculous question. When have we ever said it’s none of our business?
QUESTION: You are saying that about the Turkish troops.
MR KIRBY: What I’m – no. No, I’m not. I’m saying that – I’ll
say it again, okay? We want this to be worked out bilaterally between
Turkey and Iraq. And the way you’re trying to twist all of this around
to make it look like we’re doing something nefarious or that we’re –
we’ve got some sort of inappropriate relationships here, I mean, it’s
just so silly. And I can’t believe --
QUESTION: Well, am I really twisting it? You – have you --
MR KIRBY: I can’t believe, honestly, that you aren’t
embarrassed to ask these questions. You have to be looking at these
questions and almost laughing to yourself, don’t you? I mean, they’re
absolutely crazy.
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: So we are working very closely with the Abadi
government, right. We are working inside a coalition of 65 nations – 65
nations that have signed up to go after ISIL in Iraq and in Syria – let
me finish. You’ve had your moment. Sixty-five nations. And what we have
said from the very beginning – I said it when I was at the Pentagon in
uniform – is that we want any action against ISIL inside Iraq,
specifically, to be done with full cooperation and coordination with the
Iraqi Government and with their sovereign permission. That hasn’t
changed one whit. Now there’s this dispute between Turkey and Iraq over
the presence of a small number of troops, okay?
QUESTION: Should --
MR KIRBY: And we – I’ve said – I said it over the last several
days and I’ll say it again: Nothing’s changed about our position about
the sovereign nature of Iraq and the fact that troops operating against
ISIL inside Iraq needs to be done with the Iraqi Government’s
permission. And we’ve stated that publicly, we’ve stated that privately,
to every member of the coalition. Nothing’s changed about that.
QUESTION: Sir --
MR KIRBY: And we want Turkey and Iraq to work this out, and
they are. You are trying to find a way to make this some big divisive
issue, and even the Turks and the Iraqis know that it’s not and they’re
working their way through it. So let’s let them work their way through
it and let the rest of everybody keep focusing on ISIL, which is what we
should do, and which, by the way, the Russians aren’t doing.
QUESTION: If I may – if I may – if I may --
QUESTION: Is it – I’m sorry, should I not – should I not ask --
QUESTION: If I may – if I may --
QUESTION: Should I not be asking what the U.S. assessment of Turkey’s actions is?
MR KIRBY: You – ma’am – I’m going take this one, Arshad, then I’m going to come to you. You can – you can --
QUESTION: Should I not be asking that question? Exactly which question should I be embarrassed about, sir?
MR KIRBY: You can ask me whatever you want. I’m just stunned
that you’re not embarrassed by some of the questions you ask. And I
notice that --
QUESTION: Exactly which question?
MR KIRBY: I notice that RT very rarely asks any tough
questions of their own government. So you can ask whatever you want.
That’s the beauty of this setting, right, here at the State Department.
You can come in here and ask me whatever you want, and you can be as –
just as challenging as you want to be and accusatory in your questions –
some of those today, absolutely ridiculous. You can do that here in the
United States, but I don’t see you --
QUESTION: Which question was ridiculous, sir?
MR KIRBY: I don’t see you asking those same questions of your own government about ISIL in Syria.
QUESTION: Which of my questions was ridiculous?
MR KIRBY: And I would love to see those questions get asked.Arshad.QUESTION: I’d like to switch to just saying one quick word about Barry Schweid.

Arshad is periodically selected as the go-to when the State Dept wants
to leak and Arshad, like a declawed house tabby, earns those leaks
(billed as "exclusives" and "scoops") by refusing to ever press the
State Dept or practice actual journalism.

Now let's go to John Kirby's stupidity. One more time:

QUESTION: Thank you. Well, you were saying that it’s up to Turkey and
Iraq to figure out the situation with the uninvited Turkish troops. But
the U.S. does take upon itself to invite forces from other countries
into Iraq and in Syria. Ash Carter was telling Congress yesterday that
he personally reached out to 40 countries asking them to commit special
ops for the fight and other support. The Iraqi parliament is concerned
that their country is becoming this ground where different countries do
what they want. The Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee is
calling for the review or cancelation of the U.S. security agreement
with Iraq. What does the U.S. do to address their concerns?MR KIRBY: Address whose concerns?QUESTION: The Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee
that is now calling to review or cancel the agreement with the U.S.MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those reports, ma’am. We continue to
work with the Iraqi Government. The troops that Secretary Carter
referred to, that decision was done in full coordination and cooperation
with the Iraqi Government. If you’re trying to suggest that somehow
U.S. military assistance against ISIL is untoward or being done without
full coordination with the Iraq Government, it’s just a completely
baseless charge. And I don’t think it’s worth having any more
discussions about it.QUESTION: But you’re saying – are you saying that you’re not
aware of the Iraqi parliament’s – this Security and Defense Committee’s
initiative that they want to --MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that, no. I haven’t seen that.

SPUTNIK reports:The Security and Defense Committee of the Iraqi Parliament has called
for a review or cancellation of an agreement with the United States
on security over Washington’s lack of a clear reaction to the worsening
situation in the country, committee member Hamid al-Mutlaq told Sputnik
on Wednesday.

Wednesday morning, we were aware of this.

Thursday afternoon, the US State Dept is still ignorant of it?

John Kirby looks like a stupid fool.

His ignorance does not speak well for himself or for his department.

How can they counter terrorism or practice diplomacy if they can't even
follow the news cycle? If 32 hours after a major bit of news makes it
into the cycle, they still don't know what's going on, what does that
say about their knowledge base or their efforts to carry out their core
job functions?

John Kirby should curb his inner bitch and instead apply himself towards following the news cycle.

Not only was it in the news Wednesday morning, it is major news that the
State Dept should have been following: A member of the Iraqi
Parliament's Security and Defense Committee is stating that the
Committee is going to review the security agreement with the US and the
State Dept is unaware of that?

This is further proof that the State Dept is unable to carry out their
diplomatic mission in Iraq because they've mistaken themselves for an
annex of the Defense Dept (Kirby, after all, is the former Pentagon
spokesperson -- so much for rewarding diplomacy or career diplomats at
State).

Whose war on women?

John Kirby decided to go full on bitch and, it's worth noting, he's never done that to a man.

But, on the State Dept payroll, he thought he had the right to attack
and attempt to humiliate a journalist for asking a question.

That sort of sexism certainly applied at the Defense Dept which -- all
these years later -- still can't honestly address violence against
women, let alone harassment.

What a wonderful way to be an ambassador to the world: Kirby's attack on Gayane Chichakyan and
attempt to humiliate her -- and to use humiliation to try to silence
her -- on the world stage with the whole world watching.

That's not diplomacy.

It's also unacceptable.

There is also the issue of the revived tensions between the US
government and the Russian government. In that environment, the world
doesn't need a bitchy US spokesperson attacking a Russian reporter.

Before we close this topic out, let's zoom in on this part of the exchange:

QUESTION: The situation where the U.S. invites forces to Iraq and the
U.S. is leading this coalition, but when something goes wrong, the U.S.
says it’s none of our business, like with the Turkish troops. Let – you
have to figure it out between yourselves. Should it be of no concern to
Iraq?MR KIRBY: Should what be of no concern? I love these questions
that are 10 minutes long then I’m supposed to get the grain of it out of
there. Should what be of no concern?QUESTION: The fact that when something – you have this
cooperation, you have this agreement, but when something goes wrong, the
U.S. says it’s none of our business, like with what’s happening with
the Turkish troops.MR KIRBY: Oh, come on. Again, another ridiculous question. When have we ever said it’s none of our business?

She's not wrong at all.

The US has done that repeatedly.

The State Dept has been one of the worst offenders.

Oh, we don't want to get into the oil disputes in Iraq -- but the central government out of Baghdad is right!!!!!!

Do you now how many times Victoria Nuland pulled that crap when she was spokesperson for the State Dept?

(To Nuland's credit, she never tried to shame a reporter -- or serve her up for public ridicule -- just for asking a question.)

Or how about the Hawaija massacre?

On one hand, you had peaceful demonstrators staging a sit-in.

On the other hand, you had the forces Nouri al-Maliki sent in to surround the square and attack the protesters.

As noted yesterday, the White House is now offering Iraq attack helicopters and the US forces to pilot them.

Secretary Ash Carter: Turning to northern
Iraq
, Pe
shmerga units, with the help of U.S. air power and advisers,
have retaken the town of Sinjar, cutting the main line of communication between Raqqa and
Mosul, the two largest cities under ISIL’s control. To move people and supplies, ISIL now must
rely on b
ackroads, where we will locate and destroy them.
Elsewhere in Iraq, we have
about 3,500 troops at six locations in support of Iraqi Security
Forces, or ISF. There, we’ve been providing increased lethal fire and augmenting the existing
training, advising, and assisting program. And we’re prepared to do more as Iraq shows
capability and motivation in the counter-ISIL fight and in reso
lving its political divisions.
After a frustratingly long time,
we are starting to see some movement in the operation to
re
capture Ramadi.
Over the past several months, the coalition has provided
specialized
training
and equipment – including combat engineering techniques like in-stride breaching and
bulldozing, and munitions like AT-4 shoulder-
fired missiles to stop truck bo
mbs – to the Iraqi
Army
and counter-
terrorism service
units that are now beginning to enter Ramadi neighborhoods
from multiple directions.
In fact,
in the last 24 hours, the ISF retook the Anbar Operations Center on the northern
bank of the Euphrates River across from Ramadi’s city center. This is an important step, but
there is still tough fighting ahead. ISIL
has
counter-
attacked several times
, but thus far the ISF
has
shown resilience.
The United States is prepared to assist the Iraqi Army with additional
unique capabilities to help them finish the job, including attack helicopters and accompanying
advisors, if requested by Prime Minister Abadi.

US President Barack Obama never ended the Iraq War and, after a low intensity breather, is now publicly expanding it yet again.

Let's note an exchange from Wednesday's hearing.

Senator Bill Nelson: So go over to Iraq. Is that anti-sectarianism?
Is it working with the forces on the ground that we're supporting from
the air?Secretary Ash Carter: Well first of all, uh, Prime Minister Abadi,
I've spoken to him frequently. I'll have the opportunity to speak to
him in the coming days uuhhhh when I-I too will be visiting our-our
troops in theater. Is-is committed precisely to that kind of vision
for Iraq. I believe him. I've talked to him. Senator Bill Nelson: Do you think that's working?Secretary Ash Carter: Whether he can pull it off in Baghdad, that is
obviously a difficult matter for him. We are supporting him in that
regard because we, uh, believe that the alternative -- which is further
sectarian division, civil war, cleansing and so forth. We've seen that
before. And if he can keep his vision of an Iraq which as he called it
is decentralized. So it's not everybody under the thumb of Baghdad
because he knows the Sunni and the Kurds won't go fot that. But still
the ability to retain an integral state that keeps peace within its
borders -- that's what he's committed to --Senator Bill Nelson: Right.Secretary Ash Carter (Con't): -- that's the end state we also want in Iraq.Senator Bill Nelson: Right. So it's possible with Assad leaving
Syria, you could get Syria under control but everything could go haywire
in Iraq?Secretary Ash Carter: There are two separate dynamics. They're
different dynamics. There's one thing I'll-I'll mention that I
mentioned to you when I was with you six-six weeks ago and has
subsequently come to pass. I was talking about the importance of
getting the town of Sinjar. You're talking about The territory but-but a
lot of that territory is empty it's the towns that matter. The
critical crossing of Sinjar. Now what is Sinjar? Sinjar is a place in
between Mosul and Raqaa. And to cut ISIL into it's Syrian branch and
stop from cross-feeding is a, uh, the objective, uh, of taking Sinjar.
And so in the end the political end states are different for Syria and,
uh, Iraqi absolutely.

That exchange should alarm for so many reasons.

But chiefly due to Carter's insisting of Haider al-Abadi:

We are supporting him in that regard because we, uh, believe that
the alternative -- which is further sectarian division, civil war,
cleansing and so forth.

Yeah, that belief allowed the White House go overrule Iraqi voters and
give Nouri al-Maliki a second term as prime minister in 2010.

And Nouri al-Maliki took Iraq to the brink of destruction in his second term.

While the US government went along with him because of their fears of
"the alternative." Ruled by fear, the US government joined Nouri in
corruption and persecution.

The
turnout for the 2010 elections was high. Polls showed belief in the
political process and optimism that the country was moving beyond the
sectarianism that had bedeviled it.

Iraqiyya, a coalition led by Ayad Allawi (a secular Shia), campaigned on a platform of "no to sectarianism," and "Iraq for all Iraqis." It attracted support from Iraq's Sunnis, secular Shia, and minorities. And it won the most seats in the elections.

However, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to accept the election results. He called for a recount
and used Debaathification to try to disqualify Iraqiyya candidates and
to annul their votes. When that failed to give him victory, he further
intimidated his rivals and pressured the judiciary, underscoring his
determination to remain in power.

[. . .]

Secure in his seat, al-Maliki accused Sunni politicians of terrorism,
and drove them out of the political process. He also reneged on his
promises to tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq,
arrested Sunnis en masse, and subverted the democratic institutions that
were supposed to keep a check on his power. Sunni protests were violently crushed. All the while, the White House kept silent.

It
was clear to anyone who followed Iraq closely that politics were
breaking down -- not "breaking out" as a White House official claimed --
as al-Maliki became increasingly authoritarian and moved closer to
Iran. Furthermore, the capacity and willingness of Iraqi society to
contain al Qaeda in Iraq was being eroded through the assassination,
detention and flight of Sunni Awakening leaders, as well as the
increasing politicization of the Iraqi security forces as al-Maliki
replaced leaders who he suspected of being close to the United States
with ones personally loyal to him.

US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: There's so much in
those countries -- I'll just use Iraq as an example -- that we do not
control, cannot control and will not be able to predict when it comes to
the political outcomes and so when we say we are going to set
conditions on our aid, when we say we are going to set conditions on our
military presence, do we really mean that? Is that a viable threat?
Will we really walk away from Iraq if the government there doesn't meet
those conditions? And I think that's an important question because if,
in fact, we will not, then I wonder what the motivation is there for
the Iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps
to integrate these other minorities -- whether they be Kurds, whether
they be Sunnis -- into a functioning government -- decentralized or
otherwise?Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, first
of all with respect to the first part of your question, uhm, the -- It
-- The -- Your point gets back -- is exactly the military and the
political going together. In addition to the -- The only end state that
involves the lasting defeat of ISIL is one in which there are --
whether there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted
by ISIL. That's why once again the political and the military go
together -- that's the heart of the strategy and that's why enabling
committed, capable forces who can make victory stick is the other part
of the definition of victory, critical --US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: Yes.Secretary Ash Carter (Con't):
-- to the strategy. With respect to the leverage, I'll start there in
Baghdad but the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are
pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who
are taking a different path or not going down the path they're supposed
to. So we find alternatives, we find people that can act. If-if-if the
people that we're dealing with are not capable of -- because we have to act and we will find such forces that are capable.

Nouri al-Maliki was rewarded by the White House with a second term when
he'd done nothing to bring Iraq together. And after Barack Obama gave
Nouri a second term in 2010, Nouri went on to further persecute the
Sunnis.

When the Hawija massacre took place in April 2013?

The US State Dept and President Barack Obama were both too interested, too vested in supporting despot Nouri.

Nouri was allowed to use Iraqi forces to kill innocent civilians -- over
50 of them -- including children! -- and that was because Barack feared
the 'alternative' to Nouri.

While so much of the press ignored the massacre, others stepped up. BRussells Tribunal carried a translation of one activist who was an eye-witness to what went down:

I am Thamer Hussein Mousa from the village of Mansuriya in the district
of Hawija. I am disabled. My left arm was amputated from the shoulder
and my left leg amputated from the hip, my right leg is paralyzed due to
a sciatic nerve injury, and I have lost sight in my left eye.
I have five daughters and one son. My son’s name is Mohammed Thamer. I
am no different to any other Iraqi citizen. I love what is good for my
people and would like to see an end to the injustice in my country.
When we heard about the peaceful protests in Al-Hawija, taking place at
‘dignity and honor square’, I began attending with my son to reclaim
our usurped rights. We attended the protests every day, but last Friday
the area of protest was besieged before my son and I could leave; just
like all the other protestors there.
Food and drink were forbidden to be brought into the area….
On the day of the massacre (Tuesday 23 April 2013) we were caught by
surprise when Al-Maliki forces started to raid the area. They began by
spraying boiling water on the protestors, followed by heavy helicopter
shelling. My little son stood beside me. We were both injured due to the
shelling.
My son, who stood next to my wheelchair, refused to leave me alone. He
told me that he was afraid and that we needed to get out of the area. We
tried to leave. My son pushed my wheelchair and all around us, people
were falling to the ground.
Shortly after that, two men dressed in military uniforms approached us.
One of them spoke to us in Persian; therefore we didn’t understand what
he said. His partner then translated. It was nothing but insults and
curses. He then asked me “Handicapped, what do you want?” I did not
reply. Finally I said to him, “Kill me, but please spare my son”. My son
interrupted me and said, “No, kill me but spare my father”. Again I
told him “Please, spare my son. His mother is waiting for him and I am
just a tired, disabled man. Kill me, but please leave my son”. The man
replied “No, I will kill your son first and then you. This will serve
you as a lesson.” He then took my son and killed him right in front of
my eyes. He fired bullets into his chest and then fired more rounds. I
can’t recall anything after that. I lost consciousness and only woke up
in the hospital, where I underwent surgery as my intestines were hanging
out of my body as a result of the shot.
After all of what has happened to me and my little son – my only son,
the son who I was waiting for to grow up so he could help me – after all
that, I was surprised to hear Ali Ghaidan (Lieutenant General,
Commander of all Iraqi Army Ground Forces) saying on television, “We
killed terrorists” and displaying a list of names, among them my name:
Thamer Hussein Mousa.
I ask you by the name of God, I appeal to everyone who has a shred of
humanity. Is it reasonable to label me a terrorist while I am in this
situation, with this arm, and with this paralyzed leg and a blind eye?
I ask you by the name of God, is it reasonable to label me a terrorist?
I appeal to all civil society and human rights organizations, the
League of Arab States and the Conference of Islamic States to consider
my situation; all alone with my five baby daughters, with no one to
support us but God. I was waiting for my son to grow up and he was
killed in this horrifying way.

I hold Obama responsible for this act because he is the one who gave
them these weapons. The weapons and aircrafts they used and fired upon
us were American weapons. I also hold the United States of America
responsible for this criminal act, above all, Obama.

That's reality.

And that's what Barack tolerated and embraced out of fear of the 'alternative.'

US House Rep Beto O'Rourke was right to ask if there is anything that will make the US government withdraw its support?

Ash Carter stammered through a lot of words but he never could provide a real answer to the question.

In the same hearing, US House Rep Adam Smith (Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee) noted how there's little
difference for Iraqis with Haider al-Abadi replacing Nouri as prime
minister (in the fall of 2014).

But Ash Carter wants to pretend otherwise.

Let's move to another exchange from this week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Senator Mazie Hirono: What does defeating ISIS look like?Secretary Ash Carter: In Iraq and Syria, which I said is-i-is
necessary but not sufficient, but necessary? It means destroying their
organization, their leadership, their ability to control territory,
their ability to have a source of revenue and their ability to claim
that they are anything but a bunch of barbaraians. That's what
eliminating them means -- that's the end state that we're seeking in
Iraq and Syria. Of course, to get that to stick brings us back to what
others -- to what others have been talking about: the political
dimension of it. But for the military dimension of it, that's the point
of view, that's the objective.

No one's talking about the political dimensions.

If a senator or House representative happens to ask about it, the administration avoids the issue.

From last week's House Armed Services Committee hearing:

US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: You said that we are arming the Kurds.
The last time I spoke to [KRG President Mahmoud] Barzani, he suggested
that they needed heavier duty weapons versus light arms. And so my
question -- my first question -- would be what are we arming them with?
I mean, is this really for the battlefield that they find? Secondly,
I'd like you to address this whole issue with respect to the Iraqi army
and the inability for us to get integrated -- or for Iraq's government
to get it integrated. I remember back in the -- under the Constitution
and the whole issue of, for example, having a vote on the Kurd area
being an independent entity, for example. That was something that I
continued to ask our military leaders at the time who were overseeing
Iraq and the reality was they kept saying, 'That's the hardest part,
that's the hardest part, we're going to get to it.' And we never got to
it before we were gone. Now we see the fruits of that in that we are
still not able to have a military that -- or police force -- that's very
integrated. So what do we do about that? Uhm, so we've been taking
back territory in Iraq and one of the issues that we had is it always
takes additional -- I mean, we need to leave troops there or we need to
leave somebody there in order to hold onto it. Otherwise, we end up
losing that territory. So what is our strategy to do that? And the
recruitment effort. I would like -- and I'm sure that it would be not
within the public realm, but I would love to get briefed on the cyber
issues and how we're countering the recruitment with respect to ISIS,
ISIL, whatever you want to call them. these days, from a global
perspective. But in particular are we doing anything that you can talk
about in this setting with respect to the recruiting effort in the
region itself? And lastly, DIME -- Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military,
Economic. You know, it's not just military that we need here. So,
Secretary, if you could speak a little to what are some of the other
efforts we're doing to counter-act what is really something we need to
eliminate which is ISIS. Thank you.Secretary Ash Carter: Uh-uh, Congresswoman Sanchez, I'll touch two of
the points and ask-ask the Chairman especially with respect --
with-with respect to arming the Kurds -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman
-- and-and-and generally the Iraqi security forces. Uhm, you talk
about DIME? Absolutely, it is essential that we recognize even though
we -- uhh-uhh, I believe this is absolutely true -- are the center of
the campaign because there must be a military defeat of ISIL. And I
also believe that, uh, Iraq and Syria since it is the heart of ISIL, we
have to defeat it there. That said, this is a global fight, it's a
multi-dimensional fight, it's in the intelligence sphere, it's in the
homeland security sphere, it's in the law enforcement sphere. And I'm
not going to [have] much more to say about that except that I have begun
to convene, uh, with Secretary Kerry -- and I appreciate his
cooperation, in this regard -- all of the agencies and going through
what we're all doing -- making sure that the right hand knows what the
left is. So in cyber, you're right I can't talk about it here. I'm
happy to come give you a classified briefing. But we are linked up.
That's very important. The FBI. Jim Comey. Homeland Security. The
intelligence community. Uh-uh and-and our DoD people. Last thing I'll
say is you ask, we thought about a hold force, a-uh-ugh necessity for a
hold force is at the root of our strategy. Our strategy is to find,
identify and enable forces that can not only take territory but hold
territory because we are -- we know from the last fourteen years that
that's the tricky part. The hard part about getting victory to stick is
to find people who can hold territory and govern it decently so that
the likes of ISIL don't come back. And-and as I said, they're hard to
find. They do exist but they're hard to find. And we're going to try
to make a snowball and get more.

DIME's important, Carter insists.

But no time and effort is being expanded on it.

All the talk is of bombing, all the focus is on military.

Over the next 12 months, let's pretend the US war planes could bomb every member of the Islamic State to death.

Then what?

Because the Islamic State would continue to multiply -- and will continue to multiply.

Until you address the reasons it got a foothold in Iraq to begin with
(primarily the persecution of the Sunni people), you aren't defeating
the Islamic State and you're not preventing it from multiplying.

Even the name — "specialized expeditionary targeting force" — is a bit of a riddle.The
main point is that the force is intended to ratchet up pressure on
Islamic State militants by using a small group of special operations
troops — possibly fewer than 100 — to more aggressively use intelligence
information, including capturing and killing the group's leaders. In
theory, this would generate even more and better intelligence, feeding
what the military calls a "virtuous cycle" of intelligence-driven air
and ground operations.

We'll close with this from the US Defense Dept:

Strikes in IraqAttack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted
20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s
government:-- Near Huwayjah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and wounded two ISIL fighters.-- Near Qaim, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles.-- Near Fallujah, one strike destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions.-- Near Kisik, three strikes struck three separate ISIL
tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL fighting
position.-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL checkpoint.-- Near Qayyarah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed two ISIL boats, five ISIL fighting positions, three
ISIL weapons caches, and four ISIL command and control nodes.-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns, an ISIL fighting position, and
two ISIL vehicles.-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL vehicle.Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target.